Honda's electric output here in Europe is close to nothing and what there is is dreadful. The little Honda E was cute but not very practical and far too expensive.

How did I not know that there was a movie? I was vaguely aware of the book as it was kid of a big cult book here in the UK amongst a few older activists I knew back in the day. That's something I'm going to have to find.

No problem. These creeps are radioactive and receive less scrutiny than just about any 'human rights org' I've ever known.

A word like 'spooky' for spy or intelligence operative. I totally forgot it had another (more historical, American, racist) use as I'm not the US and never hear it. I wouldn't have noticed it you hadn't pointed it out to be honest.

No worries. I done really dig that green one though. This is a great idea.

Any chance of international shipping?

Safeguard Defenders are absolutely not a legit human rights organisation. They're a shadowy anti-China, increasingly anti-global south think tank with extremely criminal-intelligence connections. They portray themselves as a kind of lawfare org, primarily made up of Chinese human rights lawyers and that it grew out of the government crackdown on foreign agents (they say NGOs) when it was called China Action.

They operated for at least two years in a quasi-legal capacity before finally registering as an NGO in spain, where it's extremely easy to do so. Yet they also openly acknowledge that they keep the vast majority of their 'operatives' and financial partners secret with vague handwaving about how to name them would put them in danger 'all over the world'. This is despite the fact that Spanish law for NGOs and charities requires you to keep and publish a list of all associated personel. Strangely, despite this, they've never been legally challenged on this.

The founder, Peter Dahlin, was the removed(or asset) who was detained in China in 2016 before a deal behind the scenes was agreed to allow him to leave, back to the West, if he gave a confession on Chinese TV. He left China and then immeadiately did an enormous and suspiciously well promoted by Western state media press tour fair bigger than anything Action China had achieved, where he told the story of being kept on a Chinese 'black site' for 23 days and interrogated and forced into a confession, including vague but sinister sounding stories about being forcibly hooked to things like a 'Chinese confession machine'. He never substantiated or elaborated on these claims as far as I could ever tell.

At both China Action, and some of his other associated work, he's had multiple funding connections to the US state department and CIA cut outs from the obvious (NED) to smaller Washington think tank fronts. When confronted on the NED funding in one interview he said it was:

“limited to a few hundred thousand dollars through the five years the program ran.”

He never specified the amount, provided accounts, or referenced funding from other US and intelligence linked sources. Meanwhile, as he played the NED connection down, Washington intelligence front orgs just kept promoting both China Action and then Safeguard Defenders for years, including on the Democracy Digest blog - the official thinkpiece blog for NED.

Oddly, some of the few named people from Safeguard Defenders have turned up at events and panels for and with all sorts of other spooky, pro-Western causes including on Russia and Ukraine. They also seemed to have an in with the Conservative Party Human Rights Commision (CPHRC) here in the the UK. As well as appearing at their events pre-2020, there are public letters and documents showing that during the Coronavirus lockdowns here in the UK and abroad, they were providing spurious talking points and political pressure about the dangers of lockdowns and how China was using the Coronavirus response as cover for a massive crackdown against millions of 'dissidents'. Since their introduction or public integration with the CPHRC, it has pretty much only pushed for anti-China policy and focused entirely on anti-China propaganda.

On a personal note, someone I knew who worked with Amnesty once said on the subject of Peter Dahlin that it was "weird" becasue most of the people he knew had never met the guy, but Dahlin seemed to "know everyone in fucking Westminster".

Thinly veiled anti-lockdown, Covid-conspiracy talking points aren't exactly the only thing that Safeguard Defenders have pushed that's decidedly dodgy either. Naturally they were all in on Uyghur genocide narrative including some of the more extreme claims that even news orgs and think tanks didn't want to touch because they were basically completely unsourced and obviously spurious. Then of course there's the fact that their main 'success' has been that they're essentially the sole source and propaganda mechanism for the Chinese Police Stations Abroad story that was absolutely everywhere for a year. Keep in mind that these got elevated by press and Western governments to the point that said governments started serious criminal and intelligence investigations into the matter. Basically all of them found zero evidence of anything nefarious, instead just video conferencing facilities to help Chinese citizens abroad do things like renew their driver's licenses when they couldn't fly back to China to do so. Politicians made a few small speeches in parliments, before letting everyone to forget it all.

Until this week. When Safeguard Defenders have suddenly popped up in the press again as New York gets a 'confession' of one Chinese national to running one of these 'secret police stations'. Of course, anyone familiar with the American justice system, especially in regards to the prosecution of supposed foreign agents, will know that a guilty plea is far from a confession never mind a legitimate and often the result of entrapment or a trail which is a forgone conclusion, forcing the defendent to deal for a lighter sentence. Similarly of course, Peter Dahlin himself got out of China after his supposed black site imprisonment and interogation on a negotiated deal but only after publicly confessing. In the US of course it's legitimate. In China of course it's further proof of their nefarious authoritarianism.

Recently Safeguard Defenders announced that they're opening a brand new office and staffing up for local 'operatives' to set their sights on a new location...

...that office and focus is in Taiwan.

No, but I know someone who does...

Show

The ego is often irrepressible with these guys. Especially the Silicon Valley ones who are convinced they're building the future and changing paradigms, of which Thiel might be the clearest example next to Musk.

Horrible. I'm so sorry. Also, obviously, he doesn't know shit and maybe take it as the desperate lashing out of someone who cannot control or contain you.

I know it doesn't change much but hugs and good vibes

The video is simply superb as well.

Aye,

I've made the same arguement in the past. They were still excellent when I saw them at a hardcore festival this summer.

Bob Vylan in particular are

More UK stuff:

Lambrini Girls - new, feminist, gay, anti-Terf, punk

God's Country

Terf Wars

Company Culture

Bad Breeding - maybe the best explicitly leftist UK punk band of the last decade, well worth digging out thr lyrics online for these

Human Capital - full album

Contempt - full album

Thanks!

Old reflexes die hard. And sometimes it's worth dusting them off (especially when the insomnia hits) to deconstruct reactionary lib nonsense in a format they prefer - as much for anyone else reading as for them.

Why waste the time over nonsense numbers that are almost certainly doctored in various ways. Your responses? 'you changed the definition of the term! CIA doctored the information!' etc. See? waste of time to argue the numbers. they're essentially meaningless when you're going to waste time of the definition of the term 'literacy' I was literally using the most generous term and accepting china's numbers essentially at face value. I did pick the value from the WHO as at least thats marginally independent source.

See, here's where we get into a problem and why you've gotten so many responses treating you as either acting in bad faith or being fundamentally unserious.

Are the numbers meaningless or not?

It seems like you state assertions as being based on fact, people press you for examples or evidence, and you ignore or sidestep it. Then you do engage on a very select topic, that you even set the parameters for, and produce something in defense of your assertion. But when confronted with a statistical counterpoint you immediately retreated into western chauvinism and declared the evidence that contradicted your arguement as invalid on the basis of those countries being official enemies.

Of course, others then pointed out that many of the statistics and research for the various points they were refuting there and elsewhere also actually come from organisations actively hostile to these states (the CIA world factbook for example). At which point you seem to declare that all numbers are doctored, meaningless, and discussing the facts is pointless.

As for the accusations that everyone here claimed the same thing in reverse - "CIA doctored the information!" - the only user I've seen did that explicitly to point out how ridiculous you sounded reflexively stating that any supposedly 'pro-China or Russia' numbers are inherently fictitious. They also made that very clear, which means either you didn't properly read their reply or you're deliberately mischaracterising it in a poor bad faith attempt at deflection.

The primary difference is i'm happy to lampoon both capitalists and communists systems; both systems have historical and modern examples absolutely atrocious outcomes for people due to their tendency to collapse into centralized power structures leading to monocultures which always collapse. These are facts of nature and systems. While you can argue with me all you want about it, history has proven this result over and over and over across every centralized governance model, and all centralized systems suffer the same fate in basically every domain, technological, physical, biological, political.

First of all, this isn't some sort of centrist comedy jam. And even if it was, if you think communists don't take the piss out of communist states or practices or tendancies then you've clearly spent close to zero time with communists or engaged most popular media they've produced from classic literature to contemporary video games.

More importantly, pointing to two diametrically opposed systems with radically different conditions and challenges and saying 'both sides bad' isn't any kind of material analysis. It's also, most here would argue, another convenient excuse to sidestep the issue entirely, because an honest analysis would demonstrate the fact that despite individual failures, the two systems produced drastically different material outcomes for their people.

As for your assertions about "all centralised systems", would you care to define that or give some examples? What are these vaguely gestured at "facts of nature and systems"?

I'd also point out that it's historically been the case that all societal systems go through phases of collapse and evolution. (Do you have any examples of 'decentralised' ones that don't?) The importance is in how and why these structures collapse, rebuild, and evolve. Something that given your next point, and your lack of engagement elsewhere, you oddly don't seem very interested in.

The simple fact is I don't have to prove these things to you, it will literally just happen.

Wow, that's an awfully convenient bit of the gnostic belief I began this discussion by pointing out.

That would be an appropriate book end I suppose but...

I suspect neither country will last the remainder of the century given current trajectories.

That's a pretty bold prediction, that could be interesting if you presented some sort of material reasoning for it.

Nor do I particular care if this group collectively pulls their heads out of their asses and recognizes a generally decent person when they see one.

Aaaaand we're back to insults and weird parasocial, immaterial fandom stuff again.

plus you know, its nice to see that no new information has been missed due to my own information silos.

How would you know, given that you've pretty much refused to engage with any reading or simple material evidence provided to you?

You've essentially walked in, called everyone idiots, and on the only points you've even been willing to define immediately stated that all the evidence provided is lies and nonsense, before crossing your arms and going See, just as I thought, everyone here is an idiot.

Sure, I can even respect the empirical aspects of the conversation.

I'm not entirely sure you do, but ok, benefit of the doubt... Does it not strike you as strange that in a discussion around material political action and outcome it's a stretch for you to "even consider" empirical evidence? Why does demonstrable material analysis play second fiddle these ill-defined and vibes based rhetorical ideas for you? I'm not even making a criticism here, I'm genuinely asking.

But what you're all missing is the non-material aspects and thinking I'm a liberal is coloring your responses.

We're not missing them (although people here are not a monolith), we've tried to explain that we do not see any value in them and why that is. Plenty of users have also tried to engage you on why these things matter, usually to a response of petulant insults.

As for thinking you're a liberal; however you choose to define yourself is immaterial here. My point is that you're trying to counter materialist analysis with rhetorical devices that both derived from and are relied upon by an ahistorical, immaterial strain of liberal idealism in order to defend a liberal politician in a liberal political party. You could call yourself a Stalinist for all I care; your frame of analysis, arguement, and purpose is entrenched in liberalism.

I'm saying you're all assholes to a person who literally is very similar to you ideologically (worker owned means of production, strong safety net).

First of all, as brief aside, why is that you seem to continually run to insults, belittling people, misogyny, and misgendering people? Even when they're not being hostile, as I'm not. Is it a defense mechanism? Or if you genuinely think we're all idiots, assholes, and children then why are you so invested in this? But anyway, I digress...

The main point here is that you assert that our positions are very similar. They are fundamentally not. AOC is a capitalist politician who works to uphold and defend one of the most rampantly capitalist and reactionary states on the planet. She occasionally gestures in the direction of social democracy which, as others have attempted to explain to you and provided reading and sources for, is not socialism and is a release valve designed for the capital class to maintain the exploitative status quo against the threat of actual socialism / communism.

I suspect that your confusion around these definitions comes from simply absorbing the rhetoric of the American political two party spectrum rather than political theory.

and just trying to make her way in the world and is very likely a genuinely decent human being.

Once again, people here aren't interested in her intent (even if we all believed the way she's presented). It's simply not of any material concern. Doubly so for the idea that she's "just making her way in the world". Even ignoring the fact that everyone is doing that, and not usually as a member of the government of a massive global superpower, why is that relevant? As I asked in another comment, I'm not sure why we should be concerned with the continued career prospects of a capitalist, liberal politician in general, never mind doing so above and beyond the material effects of her actions, which often lead to appalling outcomes, mass death, and the strengthening of a status quo and political system that we see as entirely illegitimate and needs to be destroyed.

It's this sort of stuff that makes many of your responses seem like simple 'I like her and you're all delusional assholes because you don't' parasocial stuff.

dear god is she better than most, including many in this community

You don't know anyone in this community, have no idea what actions they've taken in life, and as many have pointed out, no, on the basis of harm caused by her actions, she's not. This, again, just feels like odd parasocial stan culture stuff so let's move on shall we?

She's also fairly talented in the political world regardless of how you feel about her positions.

First of all, it would appear not given her inability to extract meaningful change, secure the positions she aspires to, and the fact that you yourself have used her inability to do these things as a defense of her throughout this thread.

Secondly, given that we have established that AOC does not share my values, politics, or worldview, why exactly would I want her to be politically talented anyway? Why would I want an agent of a system I oppose to be good at it?

As for facts.... there are likely no 'facts' we'll agree on as clearly demonstrated on the rampant disregard for what AOC has actually done vs what you're all claiming she's done. Yes, I've repeatedly pointed out the false narrative you're all spinning about her.

That's a very convenient way to sidestep the material concerns people have brought up all over this thread. People have repeatedly asked you in this thread for examples of the sort of positive achievements that you're insisting we should recognise as beneficial to our political viewpoint and you've continually dodged, hedged, and ignored them. You do at least bring up the rail strike as an example here though, and I give you credit for that, so we'll get to that in a moment.

Could you give any examples of what you mean by people here spinning false narratives or the things we're "all claiming she's done" which she has not? I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to here.

Lets take the rail strike for example, I'll gladly lampoon biden for that because he had agency in that vote, he had a duty to represent the country, and part of that is ensuring workers have agency and an environment in which to strike. AOC per her own reports (which I'm happy to admit are biased) was acting on literally behalf of the workers in her constituency. she literally did her job she was elected to do. represent her constituents. do I agree with her vote? no. but if they did ask her to vote yes, I cant fault her for doing so. Its not like they asked her to vote no on passing a national paid sick leave policy. Would I gladly work with her to solve my countries problems? abso fucking lutely. do I fault her for working to build common ground with liberals? kinda, but I get it, shes outnumbered and marginalized and in those situations you compromise and get as much as you can.

I'm going to try and take all of this together because I think it's another example talking at completely cross purposes.

As a communist I fundamentally don't care if she accurately or admirably represented her constituents or even the interests of a particular union. Why would I? She doesn't share my politics, and many of them won't either. Similarly to the way I don't care if some Texan evangelical accurately represents his constituents. You could argue there's a difference of degrees there, sure, but they're both working to uphold the same political system which is one I fundamentally oppose.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the point that has been made again and again by people here is that she has done more material harm than good. A handful of minor concessions gained, that also strengthen an illegitimate system, simply do not outweigh the impact of the her other actions.

As for hypothetical about whether I'd work with her to solve America's problems, that's completely immaterial because; a) I'd never be in a position to do so for a multitude of reasons, and b) America's construction as a state and by extension her role in it is the problem.

But for those of you here what she did is an absolute betrayal. we. just. don't. agree.

I'm not sure it is. I don't think most people here have this sort of parasocial attachment to AOC either way. Most of us understand that she acts in accordance with the fact that she's a liberal capitalist working to uphold the American system. We criticise her for that, because we oppose it, it's against our material interests and political philosophy.

If there are people here who take that emotional tack of betrayal, it's probably either because they were once a liberal who supported her positions before they became socialists.

For others I expect it's not betrayal, but disgust at liberal cooption of traditionally leftist language in order to hypocritaclly uphold the reactionary, oppressive system.

You want hard 'numbers' for metrics? I've literally cited sources for a couple of these and compared to china to highlight the absurdity. at the scale these countries operate you're talking about marginal differences based on priorities of the ruling classes.

I tend to prefer empirical evidence and material analysis yes.

I assume you're referring to your discussion, such as it was, over literacy rates here? I'm not going to retread everything other commenters have said, instead I'd encourage you to engage further with them, but there too you either missed or deliberately sidestepped some important details.

Firstly, marginal differences matter, especially when you're talking about talking about a country with a population of almost 1.5 billion people.

Secondly, the relative starting positions and speed at which these gains happened is also relevant to the discussion if you're trying to contrast the relative merit of the two systems.

Thirdly, the direction of travel and progress also matters beyond just the snapshot of the numbers today. There's plenty of evidence that US literacy rates are declining and will likely continue to do so as the state deprioritises education and cuts funding. Meanwhile, literacy rates in China continue to climb and are expected to continue to do so.

(Continued in next comment)

I missed that, but yes, also not on and very shitty.

I mean this earnestly when I say that part of the problem you're having here, and will continue to have, is that you (like most liberals) have adopted a sort of gnosticism around politics and your theory of change that deals in intent, vague notions of 'overton windows', 'marketplaces of ideas', and even "her region of the idea sphere". It's abstraction that (conveniently for the systems that push it) can't be properly identified, quantified, and tested.

Meanwhile, you're trying to talk in these terms to a group of people who primarily come out of a discipline of materialist analysis. And because you so steadfastly refuse to point to concrete examples (facts, history, statistics, case studies, demonstrable social dynamics etc) even when repeatedly asked for them, it comes across as either deliberately evasive and bad faith, or like a mystic waving their arms in the air spouting rhetorical woo-woo claiming the opposite of demonstrable reality.

Does that make any sense to you? And if not, why not?